Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 26
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Negative DYK hooks and the BLP policy
- 2024 RfA review, phase II
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Article will be listed as merge candidate. Beerest355 Talk 00:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musicals of Larry Norman[edit]
- Musicals of Larry Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poor Larry Norman - it seems a lot of articles related to him are bloated fancruft. Sadly, this one's no exception. It's needlessly detailed and Larry Norman's small musical career isn't worthy of its own page. Beerest355 Talk 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrew so article could be merged. Beerest355 Talk 00:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Larry Norman and replace with a redirect, leaving the article history and talk page history intact in case some future researcher (of Larry Norman or of Wikipedia Bloat) wants to dig thought it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beerest355 would you object to withdrawing this RfD so we can list this as a merge candidate like we did Phydeaux Records and a bunch of other pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark O'Mara[edit]
- Mark O'Mara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think that this is a fairly reasonable application of WP:BLP1E. He is a defense lawyer who is participating in one high profile case, and the only non self published sources regard his participation in this case. He does play some role in the case, but it seems to me that this page should be deleted, and potentially the content merged into Shooting of Trayvon Martin. NativeForeigner Talk 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - his role in the case is substantial and as such notable enough for his own article which I'm sure will fill out as editors contribute further. --WGFinley (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. There is no indication that he has done anything outside this case that would indicate he is a notable lawyer independent of this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The most famous contemporary lawyer of modern all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.110.65 (talk)
- Strong Keep - with so much current coverage, his notability is already established, and though Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you can bet he will only get more notable as the implications of the decision materialize (regardless of the decision or, for that matter, indecision). Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I would remind those wishing to delete or redirect that Jose Baez has his own Wiki entry. I think that the lack of information currently on O'Mara's page is somewhat of a concern, but remember, Baez's article didn't start out with too much detail either; I'm sure someone with time could dig up some more background on O'Mara if they wanted. Donatrip (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh Ré[edit]
- Fresh Ré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No proof of songs/albums making the charts. Seems to be a one-hit-YouTube-wonder now looking for Wikipedia Glory. No sources in the article and hardly relevant sources to be found on Google. In all: fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music) The Banner talk 22:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Virtually nothing about them on the web. One possibly qualifying mention in an WP:RS, not enough: [1] --SubSeven (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage for subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gong show 03:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to County Donegal. LFaraone 02:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of donegal[edit]
- Freedom of donegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Initially AFD'ed as a hoax. Withdrawn when proven not to be a hoax, but I think the withdrawal was premature. I'm not sure if this is notable, as I can't find any reputable sources on it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a hoax but a trivial honor. A list of notable honorees does not make it notable. BayShrimp (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to County Donegal. There may not be enough sources to qualify for a standalone article, but it is verifiable. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect per above - maybe the Government and Politics section. Ansh666 17:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It's impossible to create a list of every instance of writing or inscription in every piece of Greek literature, theatre, or mythology regardless of how many sources the list has. WP:SALAT applies here. KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of recorded inscriptions in ancient Greek mythology[edit]
- List of recorded inscriptions in ancient Greek mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Newly created page copying some list content that was deleted elsewhere as being off-topic. Ill-defined topic; hopeless unsalvageable WP:OR, with a misleading title and a completely false off-topic lead. This list is not about "recorded incriptions", but about fictional acts of writing in Greek mythology. As such it is basically a random list (the actual number of references to writing in ancient Greek literature is much larger and more or less open-ended). As it is now, it is a standalone list without a parent article and no sourced coverage of the topic as such. No secondary sources are mentioned that discuss the role of fictional acts of writing in Greek myth. The lead sentence with the OR claim that "Inscriptions are an important documentary tool for understanding the history, culture and society of the ancient world" is patently nonsensical (it would make sense if the article were about actual historic inscriptions, but it has nothing at all to do with the fictional writings contained in the actual list). All in all, this page is a mess and utterly useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is a list of recorded by ancient authors mythological inscriptions mentioned in Greek mythology. They are described as recounted by ancient authors. As the name implies they are mythological. They are not actual historic inscriptions as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise falsely claims.
- Ancient authors mentioned in this article include: Homer, Apollodorus, Hyginus, Euripides and will include in the future recounts by Pliny. Herodotus, Plutarch and more.
- References of the article include:
- Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris 725
- ...and is far from complete yet.
- Pages that link to this article:
- ...more to follow
- I have contributed several parts to the deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise old article myself:
- An alternative title could be: List of mythological inscriptions recounted in ancient Greek mythology
- I didn't find an appropriate article in Wikipedia to fit in this list. I think it would be useful and I see no reason why it should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Odysses (₪) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Information could be included in larger articles on the history of writing, but does not make for an article on its own. Also seems to violate "no original research" since individual examples are thrown together to make a point. BayShrimp (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list was already deleted from an other article on the history of writing. Do you have in mind a specific article on the history of writing in which to be included? This article will grow eventually (I have another 5 or 6 examples to include) and will hardly fit into another larger article.
- For the "individual examples" see comments by Odysseus1479 below. Odysses (₪) 10:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename as per above Odysses (₪) 00:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Rename & Keep: Per nom. the name and lead are misleading, but I think the topic is worthy of a list article, notable trivia so to speak. For the title, although the suggested alternative is an improvement I think the word inscription itself is too narrow, suggesting monuments and such, and overall it’s rather long. How about List of texts mentioned in Greek mythology? The OR / editorializing in the lead definitely has to go, particularly since it tends to exacerbate the conflation of real and legendary writings, but I disagree with User:BayShrimp’s second point above: it’s the nature of a list to be a collection of things “thrown together” (but, one would hope, neatly labelled and arranged). The characteristic they have in common is pretty self-evident IMO, but it would help if some non-primary sources could be found to reference a rewritten lead. Disclaimer: Despite the similarity of our handles I have no connection to User:Odysses.—Odysseus1479 02:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good idea to remove the intoductory phrase; in fact I've just removed it. (Deleted text is shown in strikeout but it will go).
- The proposed title, List of texts mentioned in Greek mythology is a better alternative. Odysses (₪) 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This still leaves us with the problem that there is no well-sourced, non-OR coverage that establishes the topic. We don't do list articles unless either (a) the entries in the list are themselves independently notable (i.e. there are likely to be individual articles on each of the various instances of writing), or (b) the general topic ("written texts mentioned in Greek myths") is a topic of well-defined academic interest and has substantive, well-sourced encyclopedic coverage, over and above the mere listing of the individual instances. Please provide reliable sourcing from good secondary sources that establish "acts of writing mentioned in ancient Greek mythology and literature" as a topic of general academic interest. Then write an actual article about that general topic, based on good sources. Then, and only then, can we think about having a list to illustrate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is merely a list of mythological examples of writing recounted by ancient authors. Not of an actual historic tablet like the Rosetta Stone in which to include "well-defined academic interest". I'm sorry the previous introduction confused you, but it's now simplified. It's a List-Class Greek mythology article. What "well-defined academic interest" would you find in articles like, List of Oceanids, List of the kings of Ancient Epirus? In the case of Bellerophon I have in mind some references in the works by Wiseman, 1955, Burkett, 1984 and Bosset, 1958 that could be added later. Odysses (₪) 12:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This still leaves us with the problem that there is no well-sourced, non-OR coverage that establishes the topic. We don't do list articles unless either (a) the entries in the list are themselves independently notable (i.e. there are likely to be individual articles on each of the various instances of writing), or (b) the general topic ("written texts mentioned in Greek myths") is a topic of well-defined academic interest and has substantive, well-sourced encyclopedic coverage, over and above the mere listing of the individual instances. Please provide reliable sourcing from good secondary sources that establish "acts of writing mentioned in ancient Greek mythology and literature" as a topic of general academic interest. Then write an actual article about that general topic, based on good sources. Then, and only then, can we think about having a list to illustrate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename--and probably much expand, because there are likely to be several thousand worth including. (I'm not sure what the inclusion criterion should be--more than just mention of the God, something that serves a source for legendary information about them, probably.). A rather naïve first effort at something we ought to be doing. It would be easy to say there is little value in the present list, but it should serveto alert us to an area we need to work on.DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Huh? Can you please clarify? If there are "likely to be several thousand worth including", how could it ever be a manageable list? If you are not sure what the inclusion criterion should be, how can you possibly be of the opinion that it would be a manageable list? And I frankly have no idea what you are talking about with "mention of the God" or "source for legendary information about them". The things collected here are not inscriptions that mention gods, and they do not serve as sources of information about gods. If you think there is something here that we "ought to be doing", can you please say more precisely what it is that we ought to be doing, and what the present page has to do with it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (corrected) I see I interpreted it a little differently than it was probably intended, due to the confusing title. The appropriate title is likelt to be "Writing in classical mythology and legend" , and it will include those mentioned and more. It's a perfectly valid topic. , as would be almost any X in Greek mythology where there are some examples to discuss. The particular case of the secret writing in the Odyssey has a very large secondary literature because of its implication of whether the composition of Homer came before the origin of Greek writing. DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for having an article on "Writing in Homer". It has little or nothing to do with "Greek mythology", and the other examples listed have nothing to do with it. We still have no sourced and validated perspective that justifies a list article on this set of items. And whether it's an article on "writing in Homer" or one on "writing in mythology", who is going to actually write it? You, DGG? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG has a point that any article that includes a note on Homer gains validity. I must point out that it's beyond the scope of this list-article to expand Homer's "folded tablet" recount, except perhaps to add another footnote or two. This article intends to simply add a few more examples of use of writing in Mythology by ancient writers. Before 1960's, i.e. before the decipherment of Linear B, the use of writing would be considered an anachronism. But let's go ahead and accept the use of writing, not in alphabetic but in other systems such as Linear B, Mycenaean Greek etc. in pre-Homeric antiquity and mythology as a possible practice. I must repeat that the tile is misleading, therefore it's a question of renaming the existing article rather than deleting a "perfectly valid topic" as DGG has put it. I am open to an alternative title and I find both of the above proposed titles as good alternatives. Odysses (₪) 23:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for having an article on "Writing in Homer". It has little or nothing to do with "Greek mythology", and the other examples listed have nothing to do with it. We still have no sourced and validated perspective that justifies a list article on this set of items. And whether it's an article on "writing in Homer" or one on "writing in mythology", who is going to actually write it? You, DGG? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other examples are from the legendary Homeric period in which Homer is set, but not from Homer. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not "from the legendary Homeric period". They are all from the classical or much later periods, and their value in discussing the Homeric problem you mentioned is zero – unless, of course, somebody were to bring forward some non-OR sourced coverage that creates a connection between these, at last. Unfortunately, the sole author of the page has so far not even grasped the need for such coverage, and I'm evidently not getting through to him, as much as I try to explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to answer DGGs question, in the '"example" when "a letter was sent to Palamedes from Priam" you are saying that this event took place in "the classical or much later periods"? But, I always thought that Palamedes and Priam were mythological characters from the Trojan War as recounted by Homer and other later authors. Odysses (₪) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for crying out loud. That is a literary, fictionalized account written by a Roman-age author. Do you have any reliable source discussing the significance of this fictional literary reference with respect to the actual legendary period? No, of course you haven't. You haven't even begun to grasp what WP:NOR means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to answer DGGs question, in the '"example" when "a letter was sent to Palamedes from Priam" you are saying that this event took place in "the classical or much later periods"? But, I always thought that Palamedes and Priam were mythological characters from the Trojan War as recounted by Homer and other later authors. Odysses (₪) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not "from the legendary Homeric period". They are all from the classical or much later periods, and their value in discussing the Homeric problem you mentioned is zero – unless, of course, somebody were to bring forward some non-OR sourced coverage that creates a connection between these, at last. Unfortunately, the sole author of the page has so far not even grasped the need for such coverage, and I'm evidently not getting through to him, as much as I try to explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, definitely. Most examples date back to the Trojan War or before, where some form of written communication was in common use. Besides, all neighbouring countries like Egyptians, Hittites and Assyrians, they all had their own writing systems at that time. However, this article treats those examples of events as mythical. Odysses (₪) 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion just continues to demonstrate the untenable and confused WP:OR nature of this whole page. "This article treats", "this article intends", "let's go ahead and accept..." – In other words: you, Odysses, have just put it into your head to do things this way. Connecting these things together under this umbrella is just your personal speculation, based on nothing in the literature. And, frankly, the idea that some passing remarks in classical and post-classical authors (Hyginus and the Bibliotheca are from the Roman era, for crying out loud) are in some way related to writing practices in the actual "mythic" time period of the Homeric legends is rather absurd. Even with Homer, you are pushing this personal favourite idea of yours, that the references to writing reflect a memory of actual (pre-alphabetic) writing practices of the Mycenean age, quite against the prevailing opinion of actual scholarship, which for the most part sees them as either dim reflections of non-Greek writing practices in Homer's own time, or of the beginning alphabetic Greek writing (by those authors who consider Homer to be contemporary with that). This page is still a mess, and will continue to be a mess in the absence of a definition of the topic that is based in the literature and serious encyclopedic coverage and not just in your personal whim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But of course Hyginus and Apollodorus are from the Roman era. However, Apollodorus provides a comprehensive summary of traditional Greek mythology and heroic legends, "the most valuable mythographical work that has come down from ancient times" according to Aubrey Diller. And this article is about Greek mythology is it not?
The article now includes references such as:
- Bellerophon Talets from the Mycenaean World? A Tale of Seven Bronze Hinges by Ione Mylonas Shear, at Cambridge Journals Online
- Homer and the Folded Wooden Tablets by Massimo Perna
- The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. M. E. Pinder and Walter Burkert. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Nagy, Gregory (2010). Homer: the Preclassic. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- A New Companion to Homer, Ian Morris, Barry B. Powell, BRILL, 1997
The above references are considered as "reliable sources" by some scholars on Greek mythology and heroic legends. And yet, you, Future Perfect at Sunrise, still don't see any reliable source in it. Just for the record, this article started on 21:10, 26 June 2013 and only 33 minutes later you proposed it for deletion: 21:43, 26 June 2013. You didn't give much chance for this article to grow. Did you? Odysses (₪) 12:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm with FPaS on this. Odysses seems to be under the impression that all references to writing in "mythological" narratives date to some immemorial period before the accepted time of the development of writing among the Greeks, whereas the overwhelming probability is that most, if not all, of them are simply anachronisms introduced into the narratives at relatively late date. If one discounts that tendentious underpinning, the list becomes a purposeless collection of trivia—like a list of all mentions of plate armour in medieval and Renaissance accounts of ancient Greece and Rome. Taken merely as a stand-alone list, this runs afoul of WP:SALAT; taken as an attempt to compile examples that illustrate a point, it runs afoul of WP:NOR. Deor (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt that you are with FPaS . Obviously you have no idea about the references I've mentioned above, particularly on Walter Burkert and his Orientalizing Revolution in which he discusses the near Eastern influence on Greek culture in the early archaic Age, since he opposes the use of writing in the Mycenaean world. You don't even know Plato's saying "you ought to learn from Homer" (Plato, Cratylus, 391d). Yet, you are well informed on medieval and Renaissance armour, which however is of no interest to this Greek mytholgy topic. Odysses (₪) 23:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after (partial) merge with Archaic Greece / Mycenaean Greece or Iliad. Reason for merging with the former is, using Odysses' words, "the near Eastern influence on Greek culture in the early archaic Age" or Walter Burkert's view on Mycenean contacts with the East. Reason for merging with Iliad might be the existence of homeric passage alone. In any case, the rest of the listed narratives come from later epochs thus they are entirely unrelated to both Iliad and the aforementioned near eastern influence. And do not forget FPaS' argument, i.e. the absence of secondary sources that discuss the role of fictional acts of writing in Greek mythology.
- Therefore I agree with Deor that this list is either OR or a collection of loosely connected trivia. Odysses, I admit that we might have misunderstood the purpose of this list, so please clarify. Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Article will be listed as merge candidate. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill[edit]
- Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fancruft. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge We need a much better justification than fancruft to delete something. In this case we have detailed referenced information. Really the question should be should this be a standalone article or should content be merged to the articles on the two people. In this situation I would say merge as many of the references are primary, but there are also plenty of independent references as well. However it is unclear that as a "relationship" there is enough to say this is a standalone notable topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is part of a larger effort to reduce a huge load of bloat, much of which is also fancruft. As I pointed out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, nobody needs to know that Gary Burris played bass guitar for People! for four hours in 1974, even if it is properly sourced.
- I would have no objection to merging this with Larry Norman, but I have already gone through Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill and duplicated everything usable at Larry Norman. So, if the consensus is to merge, do I just replace the article with a redirect? That would preserve the history for anyone who wants to mine the information in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Larry Norman and replace with a redirect, leaving the article history and talk page history intact in case some future researcher (of Larry Norman or of Wikipedia Bloat) wants to dig thought it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, would you object to withdrawing this RfD so we can list this as a merge candidate like we did Phydeaux Records and a bunch of other pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- no objection. I'm on my phone though so someone else will have to formally close it and such. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of donegal[edit]
- Freedom of donegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think this is a WP:HOAX. Müdigkeit (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup. I clicked the news link, and it appears this does exist, but I have no idea how much stuff on the page is a joke. Perhaps it's all true, but it would need sourcing. Beerest355 Talk 20:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget it, keep.... sorry.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Claim of "Chief Saint of the Supreme Order of Naqshbandi Shadhili" must be taken with a grain of salt as
- This Wikipedia article is the only mention of such a group to be found on the web;
- The citation for this fact is to an apparently non-existent book. (The ISBN can not be found in any of the major book search tools, and the publisher's website ([2]) does not list any book with the word Deoband in the title.)
No other claims of notability can be verified either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:VSCA. Highly dubious claims not backed up by reliable sources. How did this get beyond the quick-fail criteria? Pol430 talk to me 18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Biography of a living person. highly heroic tone and no source except his own website. This is never worth to be an article in wikipedia. Wasif (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability in the English-speaking world not established, at least by the single source quoted. Highly promotional tone unbecoming an encyclopaedia. Might consider keep but only after substantial copyedit as it's likely that the person would pass notability on urwiki. kashmiri TALK 00:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment The criteria for notability on en-wiki are not solely dependent on English-language sources. Although those are preferred, they are not required. If there are Urdu language sources available (and if they are reliable), please let us know so they can be evaluated. (Google translate doesn't do super well with Urdu, but we might be able to hobble through the translation to at least establish its independence and significance.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve: This Saint's article need some references and citations, which can be added. There are Urdu Books in which he has been mentioned by other Prominent Scholars. The tone of this article is NOT heroic. He is an Modern-age and upcoming Sufi Saint. As more references come-by, we will be adding it. So, Please Keep & DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanhb2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment You are confusing an encyclopaedia with your prayer book (and that's evident throughout your writing of this article). This project is not to proclaim anyone a "saint", "modern-age", "upcoming", etc. Please be very much to the point. What are the books you are referring to that establish Mr Zaman's WP:NOTABILITY? Are they independent sources that fall within the Wikipedia definition of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? But foremostly, please state that you are not affiliated with Mr Zaman so that there is no doubt you might have a WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Thanks. kashmiri TALK 21:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment All the sources and references used in the article are independent and meets WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Let me be CLEAR, There is NO WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This article was written in good faith and independent of any influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanhb2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are confusing an encyclopaedia with your prayer book (and that's evident throughout your writing of this article). This project is not to proclaim anyone a "saint", "modern-age", "upcoming", etc. Please be very much to the point. What are the books you are referring to that establish Mr Zaman's WP:NOTABILITY? Are they independent sources that fall within the Wikipedia definition of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? But foremostly, please state that you are not affiliated with Mr Zaman so that there is no doubt you might have a WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Thanks. kashmiri TALK 21:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a Good Article Just need to update some citations and some sentences need to be rewritten. Another great Naqshbandi Sufi. I wound recommend to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackLuna (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]KEEP Article There is no need to delete this article. All the claims made here are referenced with Authentic books. I have personally seen him on several TV Shows. The recordings can be watched on youtube. Might need some external links. But, Overall a perfect article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasbih25 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Tasbih25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]Keep This article is about a great Sufi. Has reliable references. Other Islamic Scholars have cited him in their books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noori313 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Noori313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]Keep: After a through review of this article. I say we should Keep this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman313 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Salman313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Note: the last 5 !votes or so are obviously all the same editor; an SPI has been opened, and once checked, any excessive comments by the same individual will be struck. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No notability evident after a few research. Faizan 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just made a few edits so that at least the language looks better. One more reference was found fake (i.e., the guy's name does not have a single mention in the quoted book), now the article is completely unsourced. Doubts about the guy's notability remain, en-Google shows nothing important except a few YouTube videos purportedly from a Pakistani TV programme and the guy's homepage. Seems like one of thousands of local preachers or "holy men" so common across South Asia.kashmiri TALK 19:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - non-notable character; article also created by sockpuppet of a indef-blocked LTA account. KrakatoaKatie 06:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reno (Astro Boy)[edit]
- Reno (Astro Boy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A very small unsourced article which makes no attempt at proving the notability of this character from a short-lived cartoon. Beerest355 Talk 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging it to List of Astro Boy characters might be good,I think.Lsmll 10:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeRedirect to List of Astro Boy characters, as the character has not received enough reliable coverage to warrant real-world notability and thus a separate Wikipedia article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment It seems to me that most of the information in this article is already located at List of Astro Boy characters. I can't find much to merge here. Beerest355 Talk 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As pointed out above me there is nothing to merge here as there is already a section on the List of Astro Boy characters page. I would however place the name over at Reno (disambiguation) and provide a link to the characters page from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While a merge does not need to happen a simple redirection to the character page seems like a good idea since there appears to be only one logical place that someone typing Reno (Astro Boy) would want to go and I don't see any reason that someone typing that in should not be able to find the information that they are looking for.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - this is the same as Relational oppositeness. KrakatoaKatie 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of noun converses[edit]
- List of noun converses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SILLINESS? Seriously, this is a ridiculous article. I removed the speedy delete tag as A7 doesn't apply and we don't have speedy delete tags for this sort of thing. Obviously, the list of antonyms is potentially endless. As an aside, antonym and converse don't mean the same thing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, antonym and converse are not the same thing. Converses are special types of antonyms, called relational antonyms. The page says this. The list is potentially big, but not endless. Myahyawiki (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does fail at being silly. It's a real topic, although perhaps obscure to those who've had only Modern English in the last decade or two and not become computer programmers. Useful (and a good explanation), it needs to be linked into some of the other parts of speech articles. I doubt that it will grow to a hundred pairs. There are other languages that have many nouns describing family relationships where this category might be more useful to those learning those languages, even in English, to those coming from those languages, the shortness of the list will be useful. htom (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe merge to Web Ontology Language. Currently the only cited source is that project's internal documentation. Alternately, a selective merge to some article on word meaning such as Relational oppositeness could be useful. But as a list, it seems out of scope. That is, the idea that some nouns have converse relationships is encyclopedic information about languages, particularly the English language. But as a list of nouns that have such relationships, its lexical information, which seem closer to dictionary than encyclopedia scope. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go with merging into Relational oppositeness, but that appears to be a new name for the old idea and classification (perhaps by someone who didn't know the old name?) A merge, with a redirect from the the other name would work. I'm inclined to keep Noun converse, because it's about nouns, not the relationships they express. Or so it seems to me. htom (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge or simply delete, largely duplicates Relational oppositeness. Hairhorn (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem with merging into relational opposites is that converse is not opposite, it's the reverse direction of a paired relationship (parent - child); the opposite of parent is non-parent, an opposite of child is adult. The proper place to merge would be Relational reverses or Relational antonyms a subhead in Opposite_(semantics). (Note that that last has a sub heading for relational converses!) There's also Relational antonym which mistakenly redirects to Relational oppositeness, which to my way of thinking is backwards, relational antonym being a more correct term if we don't want noun (converse). Relational antonyms are a subset of relational opposites, they're not synonyms.
- I'd like
- Noun (converse) --> Opposite (semantics)
- Relational antonym --> Opposite (semantics)
- Relational opposite --> Opposite (semantics)
- Relational oppositeness --> Opposite (semantics) and
- Relational converse --> Opposite (semantics)
with mergers, redirects, and deletions to do all of that, but I have not the Wiki skills to manage that task. htom (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid M. Malik[edit]
- Shahid M. Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG non notable editor of a non notable web site, the entire article is sourced to said website in fact, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find zero good sources. Google gives me Facebook and Linkedin right at the top and google news gives me nothing at all. Oh, and his asianoutlook website references are all 404 for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Like Anna Frodesiak, I could find nothing at all on the subject. The claims to notabilty in the article are particularly weak and not convincing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability and absence of reliable sources QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also try looking for "Shahid Malik". Found two film credits on his name as Producer referenced to NYTimes. Added those in article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I also can find nothing substantive about his life in reliable sources. --Jayron32 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of WP:42.
Zad68
15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as non-notable. Judging by the large number of people from South Asia who create personal pages on Wikipedia for promotion and for displaying their CV there seems to be a common belief in that part of the world that Wikipedia is a social network like Facebook or LinkedIn. It's not. Thomas.W (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The article is now independently sourced. Would like everyone here to have a look at it and then factor comments accordingly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even with the new references the subject doesn't even come close to meeting WP:GNG. This is not an independent source. This reference is about a place he is an advisor for but in no way mentions the subject in any way and does nothing for the notability of the subject. These two are the very definition of trivial coverage and most certainly do not "address the subject directly in detail". There doesn't appear to be a single source which would support this subject's notability. The article does not meet any notability criteria per the lack of independent reliable sources that have any coverage of the subject. - SudoGhost 10:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the music school in a way, he is their adviser, so the subject and the source is kind of related. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of reliable sources Uncletomwood (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Wilder[edit]
- Lance Wilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable animator. Beerest355 Talk 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Love The Simpsons, but did not even know the guy existed. Not notable. — Wyliepedia 10:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My thoughts echo CAWylie. Not notable, in my opinion. Signalizing (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only see two sources and that's not notible so therefore delete unless if this article is improved. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go! (programming language)[edit]
- Go! (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The language got some attention when Go was released, but sharing a name with another programming language is not enough to establish notability (and the naming issue is already documented in Go_(programming_language)#Naming_dispute).
Three of the references are primary sources (the papers by the language's author) and the other three sources are either dead links or don't mention the language at all. It seems even the home page of the language is now a dead link.
So suggesting deletion per WP:N. Laurent (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It doesn't meet WP:GNG, and it's already mentioned in Go (programming language). Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of academic references, so it meets WP:GNG. The original paper is cited many times academically. Some of them are self citations, but there are independent descriptions in the academic literature: This book chapter contains a description of features of the language, this Ph.D. thesis dedicates a small chapter to it, this also mentions features of the language and its derivation, etc. --Cyclopiatalk 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of this article is mentioned in the article for Go (programming language). In addition, I'm not completely sure it meets WP:N or has enough in-line citations. APerson241 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is mentioned in the article, but just because of the similary names... Christian75 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Citation count of the original paper is somewhat on the border like. But the naming dispute has of course to a certain extend increased the notability of this language (both in terms of mentions on news sources as well as people now interesting in finding about what this similarly named language to Go is all about.) —Ruud 09:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The "Go!" language seems to be notable enough -- I count more than 80 citations of McCabe's papers on Go!, and I've probably missed several others. The "Go" language is completely unrelated (apart from the similar name). -- 202.124.75.18 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are references from different sources,and the language is notable enough,which doesn't fail WP:GNG.Lsmll 10:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has some notability in scope of functional programming languages. The worse thing is that if article is deleted, it would be extremely hard to find info on that language because search engines will show results for google's "go" instead. I suppose it is important that wikipedia have some info on the topic, if it is really mentioned in at least one published book, or article. Notability is not equal to popularity. Rodion Gork (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huawei maitree scholarship[edit]
- Huawei maitree scholarship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, written as an advertisement, no RS. Tyros1972 Talk 10:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Corporate funded scholarship that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. the Hindustan Times article reads like a rehashed press release; I found another instance of it posted here. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable, let alone independent/third party, sources appear to exist. Redirect would be pointless because this is a very specific search term. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save St Mary's[edit]
- Save St Mary's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this passes GNG. In my WP:BEFORE search, I did find these: [3][4][5] but I still think these are passing mentions more than substantive articles about the group. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable campaign. Searching finds mostly similarly-named campaigns to save other churches called "St Mary's." -- 203.171.197.33 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- A NN campaign about a (presumably) NN church - it apparently has no article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as run of the mill - on "a list of over sixty parishes slated to merge over the next few years", as have many R.C. churches closed in the northeastern US. Because the church might be notable, I could be convinced to move to St. Mary's Church, Malaga, New Jersey. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pemulwuy Dream Team[edit]
- Pemulwuy Dream Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability (single reference does not seem to exist Peter Rehse (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep This was a Government funded project [6], and has received some coverage in independent reliable sources [7]. The SBS story no longer appears to be online, but various websites at the time linked to it (eg, [8], [9]), so it can be assumed to still exist somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per the sources provided above by User:Nick-D. The topic appears to just meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FC Qarabag Khankendi[edit]
- FC Qarabag Khankendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable club. Plays amateur level in Azerbaijan. Can find evidence on rsssf that they have ever been involved in either national league or cup. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable club. The club was founded in 1927. In 1977 they also won Azerbaijan USSR League. Please see: Rsssf.Com: Azerbaijan - List of Champions --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - national champions = notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Snowman.--NovaSkola (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could someone please provide source that this club were champions. The rsssf ref has a different name. I am well aware many soviet teams regularly changed their name but at the moment there is no reliable source connecting the two club names. More than happy to withdraw the AfD if this can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This "case" seems to be related to Karabakh conflict -- there is also Armenian (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's) team (Russian iwiki contains more info on this) claiming itself to be successor of Soviet FC Dynamo / Karabakh from Stepanakert (Khankendi) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. LFaraone 02:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neftchi Baku PFK in European football[edit]
- Neftchi Baku PFK in European football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be an unnecessary fork for a team that has essentially had no real success at continental level. No indication that there is any significant third party coverage of this subject outside of the usual match reports and stat sites. Club article already contains a summary f this information. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, this club been in Europa League, which counts as success. Furthermore, where we should locate statistical information? There should be a page for it and deleting it will not make it better. Neftchi deserves same articles as per Rosenborg BK in European football or any club that been in European cup stages --NovaSkola (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Is this a joke? Neftchi Baku PFK in European football is a former featured list candidate (Date: September 18, 2012 & January 30, 2013). Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. Repeatedly KEEP! --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - this article being nominate as a FL is irrelevant, especially as it was "not promoted" on both occasions. This article is a mass of stats and has no real content; the subject fails WP:GNG and there is no justification for a seperate article. It should be merged into the parent article. GiantSnowman 08:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing devil's advocate a bit here, and hopefully not getting too waxy, the Rosenborg article referred to above is also pretty much a mass of stats with a short two-paragraph lead, yet that was promoted at FLC. I understand the Baku article failed at FLC due mainly to poor-quality writing and layout, but if those issues were fixed would it really be any different to the Rosenborg equivalent.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fenix down and Giant, what are these?
- Coventry City F.C. in European football
- Derby County F.C. in European football
- Portsmouth F.C. in European football
- Watford F.C. in European football
- ACF Gloria 1922 Bistriţa in European football
- AFC Progresul București in European football
- ASA Târgu Mureș in European football
- FCM Bacău in European football
- CF Braila in European football
- CFR Cluj in European football
- CS Flacăra Moreni in European football
- CS Gaz Metan Mediaș in European football
- FC Argeș Pitești in European football
- FC Baia Mare in European football
- FC Brașov in European football
- FC Caracal in European football
- FC Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț in European football
- FC Corvinul Hunedoara in European football
- FC Dinamo București in European football
- FC Farul Constanţa in European football
- FC Politehnica Timișoara in European football
- FC Rapid București in European football
- FC Sportul Studențesc București in European football
- FC Unirea Urziceni in European football
- FC Universitatea Cluj in European football
- FC Universitatea Craiova in European football
- FC UTA Arad in European football
- FCM Dunărea Galaţi in European football
- FC Oțelul Galați in European football
- FC Petrolul Ploiești in European football
- Victoria Bucureşti in European football
- AEK Larnaca F.C. in European football
- PSV Eindhoven in European football
- FK Vardar in European football
- Hibernians F.C. in European football
- GNK Dinamo Zagreb in European football
- HNK Hajduk Split in European football
- KF Tirana in European football
- PFC Litex Lovech in European football
- PFC CSKA Sofia in European football
- PFC Levski Sofia in European football
- PFC Lokomotiv Sofia in European football
- FC Viktoria Plzeň in European football
- FK Teplice in European football
- SC Bastia in European football
- FC Schalke 04 in European football
- AEK Athens F.C. in European football
- Újpest FC in European football
- Shelbourne F.C. in European football
- Hapoel Tel Aviv F.C. in European football
- Maccabi Haifa F.C. in European football
- Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. in European football
- FC Amkar Perm in European football
- FC Chernomorets Novorossiysk in European football
- FC Dynamo Moscow in European football
- FC Lokomotiv Moscow in European football
- PFC CSKA Moscow in European football
- FC Torpedo Moscow in European football
- FC Zenit Saint Petersburg in European football
- St. Mirren F.C. in European football
- St. Johnstone F.C. in European football
- Partick Thistle F.C. in European football
- Hibernian F.C. in European football
- ŠK Slovan Bratislava in European football
- NK Maribor in European football
- IF Elfsborg in European football
- Cardiff City F.C. in European football
- Bangor City F.C. in European football
- and etc... What are these? ►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fenix down and Giant, what are these?
- Keep.Taking into consideration the samples of the above-mentioned articles, I find it extremely unfair that the article titled Neftchi Baku PFK in European football has been deleted. ----Urek (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been deleted.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- and I'll repeat - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been deleted.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to the sources → Sure, It is notable--SaməkTalk 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't buy the argument that there's "no real content". There are plenty of similar articles you could say that about, but to me this isn't one of them. While the tables go further down the route of displaying minutiae than I would like, there is more of substance than could comfortably fit into the parent article without it becoming undue weight. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. hoax LFaraone 02:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Biggest Loser Indonesia[edit]
- The Biggest Loser Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article seems to be not true. I tried searching some references for this show, but I have found none. Some information in the said article seems to be misleading. One is JKT48. It is not a channel, but a girl group. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax (per WP:CSD#G3) - and then recreate/redirect to The Biggest Loser Asia if deemed appropriate. Ansh666 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan-Zico Black[edit]
- Ryan-Zico Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously nominated in July 2012, closed as "no consensus." There was significant agreement last time that this player failed WP:NFOOTBALL; the point of contention was WP:GNG. I do not believe that GNG has been met as this individual has not received significant coverage, and what little stuff there is relating to this player meeting a more famous player by the same name surely fails WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the nominator's assessment with regards to general notability. Beyond that, the article pretty clearly fails WP:NSPORT, since he has not played in a fully pro league and Guernsey are not a FIFA member. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL - hasn't played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject receives quite a lot of mentions in WP:ROUTINE match coverage and little in the way of significant coverage that directly addresses him. Hack (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Øyvind Strømmen[edit]
- Øyvind Strømmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The author is not himself notable. He has not been the subject of any study or articles that I can find. Not every author of a book gets a wikipedia page. Perhaps he will be a subject worthy of study some day in the future but at present he is not notable. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I find him notable. In addition to his first self-published book Eurofascism (2008), he has now got published two other books (2011 and 2013) by a reputable publishing house, as well as being co-author of yet another book in 2012. As the article notes, he has been much used as a commentator on right wing extremism and conspiracy theories in well-known media since the 2011 Norway attacks. And, as he now has got funds to put up a more extensive project on extremism, he seems to have established himself as an expert in this area. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to indeed being all over the Norwegian press as a pundit since 2011, he's been profiled on NRK and is currently being discussed in the newspapers because Fjordman and he are debating the merits of his anti-hate network and its funding. Fjordman wrote all about him in Aftenposten, pretty much the top of the journalistic tree there. Passes GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unsourced, obviously non-notable. Could have possibly have been speedied. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sustainability loops[edit]
- Sustainability loops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism, promotional, unsourced. No evidence at all this is a notable term; it is used in a few contexts, but without a consistent meaning, and there's no sign at all anyone but the article creator uses it the way it's described in the entry. Appears to be an attempt at promoting both a neologism and a company, the creator's talk page is littered with deleted promotional entries, especially Libriloop.com, described as a "sustainability loops" company. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unreferenced, promotional. Might warrant a mention at Sustainable distribution if there were a reliable independent source. groupuscule (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 06:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of AZAL PFC foreign players[edit]
- List of AZAL PFC foreign players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No attempt to establish why foreign players for a random azeri football club are inherently notable simply because they are foreign. No evidence of significant third party coverage of the topic. Fenix down (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nominated in part because of the comments made here. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the AFD cited in the nomination is slightly misleading, as lists of foreign players in a league can be notable (see List of foreign Premier League players, amongst others). This is different however; it is a list of foreign players for a club, and it definitely non-notable - that is backed up by a quick review of WP:GNG and WP:LISTCRUFT, combined with previous AFD consensus on lists of foreign players for clubs. GiantSnowman 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emilia Appelqvist[edit]
- Emilia Appelqvist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY, as she hasn't represented her country at senior level, and representing her country at youth level confers no notability. The PROD was removed by the article-creator with the rationale that "Appelqvist is an important player in a contender for the next UEFA Women's Champions League title". I thought that was a good claim for notability if backed up by reliable sources, but I can't find anything that backs up that claim, and I haven't gotten any reply from the article creator whether s/he had any sources that would back up that claim when I asked two months ago. I can't find any in-depth coverage about the player in question, the only sources I find are transfer news like this, so the subject also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level). GiantSnowman 12:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion. Here's a few more citations to add to the existing five already establishing notability: 1, 2, 3 Hmlarson (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)@[reply]
- The first source is more or less the same as the one I found, a routine transport report: It states that Appelqvist moves from the Swedish champions to join another club, and that Piteå IF are very happy about their new signing. It also states that she is a regular at the Swedish under-23, that she was captain of the under-20 team in the 2010 World Cup, how many many matches she has played at youth international level, and her former clubs.
The second one is a good source, if you find more like that I might change my vote. The third one only mentions her name, and doesn't really count for notability. As for the "five existing citations establishing notability", we have A) one citation to a stats-profile from Soccerway, B) another transfer-report similar to the other ones, C) a match-report which doesn't mention her name, D) a stats-profile from FIFA, and E) a dead link, which I believe is a match-report similar to C. Neither of this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are five more for your reading pleasure: 4, 5 (from radio program), 6, 7, 8. Hmlarson (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually thought you were Swedish, since your username contains a Swedish surname, but after reading through this I believe you are not understanding any of it just googling her name and pasting everything you find. #4 is about the under-20 team and not Appelqvist, #6 is a blog while #7 and 8 are routine transfer-news, nothing that is useful to meet WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I guess we'll let the rest of the editors and closing admin decide on that. Hmlarson (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity: #6 Damfotboll.com is not a blog; it's a sort of Swedish She Kicks, run and edited by Anette Börjesson and Thorsten Frennstedt. These are professional women's football journalists of many year's standing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I guess we'll let the rest of the editors and closing admin decide on that. Hmlarson (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually thought you were Swedish, since your username contains a Swedish surname, but after reading through this I believe you are not understanding any of it just googling her name and pasting everything you find. #4 is about the under-20 team and not Appelqvist, #6 is a blog while #7 and 8 are routine transfer-news, nothing that is useful to meet WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are five more for your reading pleasure: 4, 5 (from radio program), 6, 7, 8. Hmlarson (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is more or less the same as the one I found, a routine transport report: It states that Appelqvist moves from the Swedish champions to join another club, and that Piteå IF are very happy about their new signing. It also states that she is a regular at the Swedish under-23, that she was captain of the under-20 team in the 2010 World Cup, how many many matches she has played at youth international level, and her former clubs.
- Keep, played for the Swedish league champions, and that's pretty high up in the mostly amateur women's football. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe she squeezes by on GNG. Lots of mentions, and not just as one in a list of names - she keeps being called "one of the two best", she was one of two Swedish players chosen for the Top 10 in 2009, and those are lengthy transfer reports for a female player. Plus the one profile article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per GNG: this coverage is beyond WP:ROUTINE. I think it's about time women's football articles got their own, more appropriate, notability criteria on here to prevent these types of nominations in future. I know the WP:FOOTY lads generally mean well, but in most cases what they know about women's football would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree with your suggestion. Given the context of this widely known circumstance: 1, [2], [3], clearly the notability criteria needs to be updated relevant to gender as well as countries that don't have 100+ years of established football history and widespread "fully professional teams". The fact that there is currently only ONE women's football/soccer league that meets the "fully professional" notability criteria put forth by WP:FOOTY (not mentioning what it took to get it listed there), and at least EIGHT women's leagues listed as "top-level leagues which are not fully professional" only serves to EXCLUDE the majority of professional female football/soccer players and teams. Hmlarson (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a strong feeling that you knew you would agree Clavdia before you invited her to join the discussion, and that might be the reason why you did not invite any of the three other editors with only minor edits to this article. (Yes you sent a message to Yngvadottir aswell, but she did make substantial edits to the article, unlike Clavdia). Mentoz86 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four different projects associated with this article - not just WP:FOOTY. Perhaps, I will make them aware also to encourage a more thorough consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and this edit made sure that all projects got the article arlets, but inviting certain users to this discussion which you know are likely to keep articles about women footballers is called WP:VOTESTACKING. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you're fishing in the wrong pond. Hmlarson (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't we just "go over their heads" and fix up our own notability criteria? Start with the leagues we like, then, working backwards from that, come up with some lame justification for drawing a red line around them. After all that's what they did with WP:FPL, and we would struggle to come up with anything as ridiculous! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You certainly have a right to your opinion, but you're fishing in the wrong pond. Hmlarson (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and this edit made sure that all projects got the article arlets, but inviting certain users to this discussion which you know are likely to keep articles about women footballers is called WP:VOTESTACKING. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four different projects associated with this article - not just WP:FOOTY. Perhaps, I will make them aware also to encourage a more thorough consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a strong feeling that you knew you would agree Clavdia before you invited her to join the discussion, and that might be the reason why you did not invite any of the three other editors with only minor edits to this article. (Yes you sent a message to Yngvadottir aswell, but she did make substantial edits to the article, unlike Clavdia). Mentoz86 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree with your suggestion. Given the context of this widely known circumstance: 1, [2], [3], clearly the notability criteria needs to be updated relevant to gender as well as countries that don't have 100+ years of established football history and widespread "fully professional teams". The fact that there is currently only ONE women's football/soccer league that meets the "fully professional" notability criteria put forth by WP:FOOTY (not mentioning what it took to get it listed there), and at least EIGHT women's leagues listed as "top-level leagues which are not fully professional" only serves to EXCLUDE the majority of professional female football/soccer players and teams. Hmlarson (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would like to say 'Keep' but cannot simply as I don't see enough that passes WP:GNG. Have to agree though that women's football is let down by WP:NFOOTBALL and agree more appropriate wording is needed.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to meet the minimum standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron32 17:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (on the balance) - the womens' lists are incomplete on the WP:NFOOTBALL - so top level league and hovering around national selection to national team is enough for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to creep over the GNG line for me, which trumps a project guideline (i.e. NFOOTBALL). NFOOTBALL does need to be revisited, particularly in regard to female footballers (seems nonsensical that this lady has reasonably wide coverage, including at FIFA.com, while someone like Jack Marriott (footballer) say, is auto-notable in the eyes of NFOOTBALL for having made a single substitute appearance of 29 minutes in the Championship). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - just about satisfies GNG: NFOOTBALL is hopeless for women's football, as it is with other things. She's played in 70 games for two top-tier sides; that on its own should be enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - adequately satisfies GNG, which for me is more important than specific criteria as in NFOOTBALL which discussion above shows not satisfactory anyway. Re BLP: nothing contentious, adequately sourced. While the article occasionally lapses in NPOV (tone), this is not grounds for deletion, just article improvement. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Notability has been asserted, and while clear there is a need to potentially clean up the article, the consensus is to keep the page. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestling authority figures[edit]
- Professional wrestling authority figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mostly seems to be original research, fancruft, and has no citations that establish the notability of the theme of "authority figures". — Richard BB 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the idea of having these figures in wrestling is generally pretty stupid, but they are clearly a notable part of the shows and companies. This articles is also essential, as it is the target article on hundreds of wikilinks within articles (which, in itself, is a pretty clear assertion of notability). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would perhaps propose splitting this up - the ROH stuff can go into the main ROH article and there can be separate ones for TNA and WWE authority figures. But until that happens, keep this page. (Chill (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep The article clearly needs some work, as Elfoid pointed out, and ideas on how to improve it have previously discussed at WP:PW. With that said, I agree with GaryColemanFan that this is a notable and frequently linked page.LM2000 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How an article is constructed often determines what kind of attention it attracts. This article as it exists does constitute fancruft, as well as undue weight and recentism. The scope of authority figures stretches far beyond the current crop of storyline-driven cable television shows. The board of directors of the National Wrestling Alliance were legitimate officers of a legitimate organization, but their actual business was conducted strictly in private, with their public presence limited to serving as kayfabe authorities in wrestling storylines. There are also various sorts of athletic or sporting or even specifically wrestling commissions all throughout the world, both kayfabe and legitimate. In the United States, a number of states had athletic commissions which took an active role in wrestling events. This would often be incorporated into wrestling storylines (e.g. a commissioner stopping a match over the level of bloodshed, leading to the promoter scheduling a big-money rematch). There were also real-life consequences with athletic commissions. When Oregon's commission was turned over to the Oregon State Police in the early 1990s, the heightened enforcement was said to be one of the main factors which led to the shutdown of Don Owen Promotions. It could be safely stated that other promotions have suffered a similar fate. In other words, there's plenty of directions to take this article further, all of which establish notability. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People's Charter Movement[edit]
- People's Charter Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aside from brief mentions in a news article, there does not appear to be much coverage of this subject. It does not seem to meet notability guidelines under WP:ORG Taroaldo ✉ 01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the PCM is a growing important political group in Lesotho, as evidenced by Google search results, both in books and MULTIPLE newspapers. It is an important part of the debate about Lesotho's merger into South Africa. Considering that almost non-existent Indian political parties have stubs, it is hardly justifiable to remove this article. K a r n a (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: instead of deletion, this article could be merged with Proposals for South Africa to annex Lesotho which covers substantially the same topic. - htonl (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 09:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Guardian article already linked and this book entry Historical Dictionary of Lesotho constitute significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That said, the above-suggested merge might not be a bad idea but that is more properly discussed on the articles' talk pages. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gyani Ram[edit]
- Gyani Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Practically the only mention I can find of a person with this name is in relation to a widow receiving a freedom fighter's pension, but there is no indication that this is the same person as recorded in our article. Sitush (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN. I found this which indicates there was a Gyani Ram who was a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. I can't find anything that would verify that he was a "freedom fighter" which provides no context as to what conflict he was a freedom fighter in. Perhaps somebody versed in Indian history could help. In any case, that could be removed as unverified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am versed in Indian history ;) "Freedom fighter" means they were campaigning for Indian independence from British imperial rule. As far as the source that you provide concerning the politician bit, well, the problem is that (a) we have no idea whether it is the same person and (b) that may well not even be his common name. Indian naming conventions vary widely and without some decent sources we are pretty much writing an article on a "John Smith" without any idea which John Smith it is. There have been many thousands of politicians-cum-freedom fighters in India but extending WP:POLITICIAN to cover a vaguely-defined person at a vaguely-defined time based on a single snippet view does not really seem to add much of encyclopedic value, especially so if that is not even the name he was most frequently been known as. Your source was published in 1962 and refers to Gyani Ram in the present tense but, again, that is pretty meaningless because there are lots of republished Indian works shown on GBooks and it could as well be a reprint of something from as far back as the Raj period. Put it another way, the article can always be recreated if some decent evidence about a specific person does turn up at some point. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, glad you turned up. YK, OrangesRyellow and sarvajna will probably not be far behind you. Please can you explain which person passed WP:POLITICIAN. Hopefully, there are some non-English sources out there that can be translated. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They might! Just like how RP & Boing might. See article to answer your question. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 09:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Member of a sub-national legislature, so clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rephrased the article so that it can be kept per policy. We don't know when he was born or died, whether he was a freedom fighter etc and so all of that has been removed. It now just says that someone bearing this name was elected in 1962. I can live with this. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfectly acceptable per our verifiability policies. Are you withdrawing the nomination? -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to do pre-empt by doing a non-admin close then I have no problem with that. I still think that the article is a waste of time but I know that our crazy notability guidelines allow a lot of such things, based on the oft-misguided Micawberism that something will turn up. Me? I'd rather there were 3.5 million less articles and those that remained were well-written and sourced etc! It really isn't hard to do if a subject is genuinely notable. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There are reliable sources listed both in this discussion and on the talk page (though that link is only available through the Internet Archive now), and a cursory look at Google Books reveals multiple sources on the music. Hopefully this settles the issue once and for all. KrakatoaKatie 07:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Les Légions Noires[edit]
- Les Légions Noires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music scene; possibly merge with black metal if not deleted.
With a paltry number of references, I cannot see how this article establishes notability of this scene. Only two of the bands mentioned actually have their own articles, and the vast majority of all of the bands (14, by my count) have only released a few demo tapes, most of them only a single demo. Unlike the Early Norwegian black metal scene, this loose collection of unremarkable bands only have the fact that they're based in France in common; this 'scene' has not created any lasting influence on the genre and have done nothing to establish notability. — Richard BB 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They were important for the French scene, see the MkM quote I added to the Black Metal article. --217/83 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I cannot find the quote you mentioned; could you direct me to it? — Richard BB 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you searched for the French name, not the English one. While I’m at it, I can direct you to the original interview. And for those who don’t want to click: “The french scene was quite easy to divide : either you were NSBM and you had the support from zine and the audience, or you were part of the black legions and you had that ‘cult’ aura... Since Antaeus was a band from Paris, not performing nsbm nor ‘scandinavean [sic!] black metal’ with all its cliché, we did not fit anywhere, yet we never did change to adapt.” --217/83 07:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I cannot find the quote you mentioned; could you direct me to it? — Richard BB 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know if people without accounts are allowed to weigh in on deletion discussions so feel free to edit this out if that is not the case. Much like the two previous nominations the deletion request is biased.
>> this loose collection of unremarkable bands only have the fact that they're based in France in common
The bands were connected by region, ideology and above all sound. Even a cursory look at the collective reveals that. It's true that claims like these are hard to verify but yours are at least as POV.
>> this 'scene' has not created any lasting influence on the genre and have done nothing to establish notability.
How would we measure this lasting influence? The fact that unlike every other local scene LLN is still spoken of over 20 years later? The fact that a lot of prominent Black Metal bands (Satanic Warmaster, Hell Militia, Deathspell Omega, Gestapo 666, Peste Noire, Bekhira, et al) claim to be influenced by LLN?
Now I understand if this article was nominated because of poor quality or lack of sources, I doubt among Wikipedia editors there are a lot of people who own early 90's Black Metal fanzines, but to claim LLN had no impact on Black Metal is simply false.
It's true that there will probably never be a "featured article" about Legions Noires in Wikipedia simply because of the secretive nature of the scene and the difficulty of seperating the countless rumors surrounding it from actual facts but LLN certainly left it's mark in the scope of the evolution of black metal sound, aesthetics and ethos.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.221.249 (talk • contribs)
- Comments. Yes, IPs are of course welcome to contribute. I'd take issue with a number of things you've said. Firstly, I cannot see any bias in my nomination: I've done it entirely for the reasons I stated in my opening paragraphs. Next, the ideology and sound that are supposed to connect them seem to be no different to black metal as a whole. As I said, the only thing they have in common (aside from the genre) is geography. Thirdly, we could measure lasting influence through citations and other such evidence. There are plenty of other scenes that are spoken of 20 years later – the Early Norwegian scene in particular. However, I can see no evidence that this one is. Next, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever of the bands you listed being influenced by LLN. If this were true, it would be able to be sourced. Currently, the article does not establish any such notoriety. Much of your argument seems to be centered around the fact that LLN has left some kind of lasting impression on the music world, but my point is that this article does not demonstrate that. I see no reason why this the contents of article cannot simply be merged into the black metal article. — Richard BB 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no sound of “black metal as a whole”, and there were still enough bands playing the Greek style, Finnish style etc. that everyone knew that. There is an interview with a Vlad Tepes member who rejects the latter for being black Grindcore/Noise not Black Metal, published in Kill Yourself!!! Magazine (see Full Moon Productions site); according to him, Sigillum Diaboli from Finland “play grind- music, not Black metal”. And as Devil worshippers like Euronymous and MLO members like Jon Nödtveidt do not have exactly the same ideology (though both are death worshipping, unlike LaVeyans), there is no way the ideology could be “be no different to black metal as a whole”; besides, Euronymous thought it is okay to spread Black Metal as long as there is no ideological compromise (as Dissection and Watain later did), whereas the Black Legions wanted to remain underground, which is an important difference.
- I agree with Richard that there are enough “other scenes that are spoken of 20 years later”, but it’s mostly the Norwegian scene, the Black Legions, and the Polish one. The BlazeBirth Hall (early Russian NSBM scene) is not that unknown either, but far less known than those mentioned before.
- I don’t know if all those bands were really influenced by the Black Legions, but some definitely were, and this can be referenced; the German article names Horna and Xasthur, both with a reference. I would appreciate it if the IP user could gather some references for the bands they mentioned. --217/83 07:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be great keeping the article based on these reasons, but I'm afraid I simply cannot see that what you've said is currently demonstrated by the article or its sources. As it stands (though I would hope for improvement) it looks like this article can be merged into black metal. — Richard BB 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this, but anyway - This source seems to provide notable coverage. Between this and Terrorizer, while not exactly ripe with notable coverage, LLN does seem to have some basic notability. If the IP commenter can actually list some of the zines the band was mentioned in during the 90's, that would help too.--¿3family6 contribs 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the poor formatting of my posts, I haven't used Wikipedia in a long time so I'm somewhat lost with the code. I also do not want to turn this discussion into quote-mining so I try to respond in brief.
To expand upon my claim that "unlike every other local scene LLN is still spoken of over 20 years later?" I was more so pointing at the other highly local scenes of the early 90's that were influenced by the "black metal mafia" thing they had going on in Norway. Even my then hometown in Finland had a an "occult circle" of it's own that consisted mostly of demo-level underground black metal trash and this thing was common all over Europe. My point was that absolutely no one remembers any of those scenes but LLN is something most underground black metal fans can identify by sound, iconography and overall look alone. The BlazeBirth Hall thing was the only one that came even close Legions Noires in terms of notability and influence but that came bit later in the genres musical evolution. Though I can understand if importance within a niche crowd in an already niche genre does not warrant a Wikipedia article.
I wish I could source my list of bands better by I fear I can only come up with higly anecdotal stuff like similarities in sound and aesthetics that wouldn't fly in an encyclopedia. Interviews from obscure Black Metal fanzines are not a thing that's archieved in the internet. The only thing I could find with some quick googling was Satanic Warmaster listing the pivotal LLN release "March to the Black Holocaust" as one of the "most important releases" and mentioning both Mütiilation and Vlad Tepes as sources of inspiration. Satanic Warmaster interview (in finnish) At times like these I kinda wish I still had my blackmetal.fi account active.
Alas, as I said before there will probably never be a great article about Les Legions Noires in Wikipedia simply because unless people involved spill the beans sourcing it would be difficult but I still feel the scene left enough of an influence to warrant it's own article here. I could go on about what I personally think were the contributions of LLN to Black Metal but I feel that would not get us anywhere. If Richard BB or someone else could perhaps point out some critical information of what we are missing here I guess we could start working on improving this article from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.221.249 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vaigalė[edit]
- Vaigalė (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence has been provided for the existence or location of this river. Lithuanian Wikipedia has unsourced articles with no coordinates, for this and for River Elna. No ghits for this river. PamD 07:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nom: also, the Elna River (of which the Vaigalė is said to be a tributary) is not listed in List of rivers of Lithuania nor as a tributary in Neris, although the Lithuanian wiki article says it is a tributary thereof. Ghost river, or spelling problem, or what? PamD 08:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC), expanded 12:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The river exists. See for example this listing from Seimas. Your gsearch might not work because you might need to set the language to Lithuanian. However, it is utterly non-notable rivulet of 6km in length. Even superbly detailed map does not name it (I spent way too much time finding where it's supposed to be because the article mentions wrong villages). I have nothing against deleting it. Renata (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No reliable, secondary sources about this event are referenced or even available. A future article could be created if those reliable, secondary sources about the event itself - not simply papers presented at the conference - can be found and provided. KrakatoaKatie 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Computer Science in Russia (symposium)[edit]
- Computer Science in Russia (symposium) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this via speedy as a A7, but the big issue was that it had been removed by a user other than the original creator. I do have serious doubts about the symposium's notability and I do think that there is some COI involved, as one of the user's names seems to be the same as the name of the author of this book that is a list of the proceedings of the symposium. However since this is a Russian event, there is the possibility of sources in Russian so I'd prefer this go through AfD, especially since I'm not sure that re-tagging an article with a speedy tag is really something applicable here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reasons why the conference is important on the talk page of the original article. I don't think one need to copy it here. I also want to add some observations:
- Second author of the book mentioned above is Alexander Razborov, Nevanlinna and Gödel Prize winner. That could indicate that the conference has a sufficient quality level.
- The Program Committee page of the current CSR indicates that the conference is in fact international. 78.25.122.118 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(It was me above) Avsmal (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... part of the problem is that events are not notable for having notable persons involved in their production or for attending. (WP:NOTINHERITED) An article by a notable person is good, as long as the article itself is not actually part of the event, as is the case for the book I linked to. That's the official proceedings for the event, which make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Even if the publisher is technically separate, this is still the official writeup by the CSR symposium and is considered to be a primary source. As far as an event being international or long running, just being an international long-running event isn't enough. You have to show that it has received coverage in sources that are independent of the subject (WP:PRIMARY) Even if the event was the only one of its kind in the world, that still wouldn't be enough. You have to show that it has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the event. Being international and somewhat long running just means that it might be more likely that this has received coverage in reliable sources. I just couldn't find anything non-primary to suggest that this is a notable symposium. I have no true issue with it being userfied if it does get deleted, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I understand the problem. Could the following links be considered as independent sources? List of TCS conferences on StackExchange Top conferences in algorithms & theory by MSR Avsmal (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding notability inheritance: notability is not inherited, that's true. I didn't try to say that the conference is notable for only the fact that some notable persons are involved in it. The conference is notable if it is accepted by the scientific community as a "good conference". If and only if the conference is accepted as "good" one, notable persons start participating in. There are a lot of notable TCS persons who we involved in the conference (speakers, invited speakers, program commitee, etc.). And this implies that the conference is accepted as "good" one. Avsmal (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Just having people think well of it in the community isn't enough. There are a lot of events that people think well thought of and accept, yet just being well thought of isn't enough. It must have coverage in reliable sources to show notability. An article can't be kept unless it has multiple reliable sources that show notability for the subject. That's ultimately what this article is lacking: reliable sources. It's generally considered that if a subject is considered to be highly noteworthy within its field, a reliable source would have covered the event in some capacity. If there aren't RS about the event, then we can't show that the subject passes WP:GNG and the article shouldn't be kept. Rather than argue on your say-so that the symposium passes notability guidelines, you should show that it passes notability guidelines by providing reliable sources. Pretty much no article will be kept on the argument that "It's notable" without at least 3-4 good in-depth reliable and non-primary sources. I'm bolding several parts of this because trying to assert notability without providing reliable sources is pretty useless when it comes to keeping an article here in AfD. We can go back and forth, but without reliable sources to back up notability the back and forth is pretty moot. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided two sources above: List of TCS conferences on StackExchange Top conferences in algorithms & theory by MSR. There are also some sources with links to the CSR: Computer Science Bibliography, Alan Turing year. And there is a lot of Russian sources. Avsmal (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with those sources is that the first one is a question on a forum-esque type site where anyone can ask a question and anyone can answer it. It's an open wiki, which is considered to be pretty much virtually unverifiable as far as who is posting, what they're backing it up with, and such. It's not considered to be a reliable source. The second one is an academic search. The big thing about search hits is that you can't guarantee that everything that comes up is usable as a RS. It's very, very common for someone to say that something has a lot of hits, only for those hits to be brief mentions, false positives, or primary sources. By primary I mean that they are papers that were presented at the symposium. This makes them attached to the event, which would make them primary regardless of who wrote them or whether or not they're peer reviewed. In this case it looks as if many of them look to have been published specifically for the symposium, which is to be expected. Part of the event puts a heavy emphasis on receiving an award for the best paper, after all. The additional problem with papers is that you need to ensure that they actually discuss the symposium rather than just topics of discussion at the event. I can't really see where these actually discuss CSR itself rather than computer science in general. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Individual symposia are almost never notable, but this is a series, and it might be. It isn't published separately, but as volumes that are a small part of a long series of other computer science topics, so there is no way of judging by library holdings. So I looked att he individual prize papers . In Google Scholar, they have successive citations of 13, 8, 10, 4, and , which is absurdly low for a major conference in a fields where the most important publications are in conferences. The conclusion is that it is not a major conference. A "good" conference is not one where good people sit in the audience--that's like judging a show by whether notable people buy tickets, and not even one where notable people attend and publish what they couldn't publish elsewhere; it's one where notable people attend and publish good papers-- that's like judging a show by whether it has notable performers giving their notable works. If the best things presented are of trivial interest, it's not a notable show, or a notable conference. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- in partial disagreement with my friend TokyoGirl, the GNG is not the main factor for academic or scientific works, though I do agree that to some extent if a scientific presentations catches exceptionally wide public interest, which can indeed be judged by the GNG, it can be considered notable for our purposes. We have considered a very few scientists notable in cases like that, but in each case I recall here this been strongly challenged,and most such claims rejected unless there is exceptional coverage. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I confirm that I was involved in the organization and that this can be assumed as a COI (note, however, that 200+ people have been on the conference committees and 1000 or more authors published their papers, so too many competent people can be treated as having a COI). External sources, however, do not have a COI; so let me cite again what I said on the initial talk page: According to Microsoft Research Academic Search [ http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Conference/1890/csr-computer-science-symposium-in-russia?query=csr ], the conference has twice more citations than, say, Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation, and the latter one is present in Wikipedia. Edwardahirsch (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the citation count, (1) we are talking about the conference and not about the prize, (2) note that this is a TCS conference (and not computational biology, for example), and the citation tradition here does not assume that you get many citations very fast. Still, I have just searched (at Google Scholar) for just the first paper in the list of awarded papers (Jez and Okhotin), and found 31+17=48 papers citing it (you may be also misguided by the fact that many of the citations go to the journal version of the paper published well after the conference). (Still let me repeat we are not talking about the awards at the moment.) Edwardahirsch (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd said it above, but the citation count doesn't always mean notability. Sometimes it just means that these papers were shown at CSR and the name of the conference is attached to them. You also have to be wary of false positives. Something I've run into with multiple scholarly journal searches it that they'll list the same thing several times. For example, a search will bring up a paper and then bring up a "citation" that is just the paper being listed in the content list for wherever it was listed. Other times you'll come up with things that briefly mention something. Just stating that something comes up with a number of citations isn't really enough: you have to verify that the citations are actually valid. That's why most articles about things aren't really kept on the number of citations but on the content therein. As far as the sources you listed go, this one just lists the various official papers that were considered to be primary sources earlier. This one just has it in a list, which isn't something that would give it notability. Many related pages list conferences that relate to the page's subject matter. As far as the Google hits for the name in Russian goes, WP:GHITS and how many hits you get back aren't always a sign of notability. Just like the citation searches, it's about content and not quality. If all you get back are false positives, primary sources, and non-usable links, then the amount of hits won't help the case out any. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have some recommendations on how to get coverage, but I'll post that on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your recommendations! I've found some notes in Russian local newspapers like theese University newspaper, Business newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avsmal (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more: IT newspaper about the first CSR.Avsmal (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... the first link, is that the paper for Kazan State University? If so, then that would be considered a primary source. It looks like it is, from what I can tell. The second one I'd have to run through the RS noticeboard. The big issue for that one is that it looks like anyone can submit a tip per this page on the website. That doesn't mean that it's not usable, but it does make it less likely because we would have to look into what their article and editing policies are. That's part of the big problem with using online newspapers/journals. It doesn't mean that it's completely unusable, so I'll run it through the noticeboard. The third link to the IT newspaper is another one that would be debatable, but I'll run them through the RS noticeboard and see what they come up with. If they're usable then they would help towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I kept looking for sources: City administration of Kazan, another business newspaper, another IT newspaper, yet another newspaper.Avsmal (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a short report on the conference in the Bulletin of European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, No.105, see page 236.Avsmal (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Primarily per comments of Avsmal that Alexander Razborov a nevallina prize winner is associated with it. Also there are many computer science conferences having wikipedia articles which does not boost such stature of participants like International Conference on Computer and Information Technology which are kept because they can be of very high importance to that select country. Although since Russia ranks very high in research output in CS in general I see no reason to shortening the notability criteria required in wikipedia hence if the nominator can give more examples of such conferences and symposiums on CS in Russia I will reconsider my vote. The Legend of Zorro 08:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you have to back this up with reliable sources. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by having notable persons involved in it and the output of an entire country in any context (computers, books, etc) doesn't mean that conventions or events held on these subjects inherits notability either. Saying that there are other articles on other events doesn't really count much either, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pretty much states that other articles may exist because they have reliable sources or just because they haven't been found and nominated yet. You have to back this up with reliable sources rather than say "notable people are involved and Russia does stuff with computers, plus other articles on computer conventions exist". That's not really a valid argument for keeping an article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not arguing on basis of WP:NOTINHERITED. It seems to me that symposiums may not be the standard procedure of presenting a academic paper in case of CS in Russia. It will be highly relevant here if you or the author of this article can show some other examples of CS symposium in Russia. If the symposium thing is new in Russian context and it is having a academic impact in CS research in Russia then surely it is notable. Since a notable academician Alexander Razborov is associated (as per the above comment) it is safe to assume the symposium is having at least some impact in Russian CS research. The Legend of Zorro 10:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comemnt (1) Every event a notable person goes to is not therefore notable, Every book a notable person is one of the editors of is not therefore notable. (it is true that every book a really famous person writes is therefore notable but I don't think it would apply to editorships of conferences or scientific papers.) (2) yes, I noticed that one of the papers was in fact published elsewhere, since what people cited primarily was not the conference, that's further evidence against the ;conference being notable. (3} On almost any topic, Wikipedia has dozens (or sometimes hundreds) of articles that shouldn't be there. Having made one mistake, we are not committed to continuing the error. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding (2), let me explain how it works. In (theoretical) computer science, you first submit your paper to a conference, it is accepted (or rejected, because of the competition), presented and published, and later a "polished" version of it is submitted to a journal. Still conferences remain the primary medium in disseminating CS results, they are far more important than journals (in CS, contrary to, say, mathematics and other fields). In particular, the "elsewhere" mentioned above is a special issue devoted to this particular conference. Edwardahirsch (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree with you DGG in all of your 3 statements but I am still stick to my rationale that "symposiums/conferences/seminars may not be the standard procedure of presenting a academic paper in case of CS in Russia". Excluding the nomination the only example of symposiums/conferences/seminars I can find is Kolmogorov Centennial Conferences. I may be wrong but this is sticking me in voting Keep unless someone can show evidence that some other examples of CS symposiums exist in Russia. The Legend of Zorro 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nouman Ali Khan[edit]
- Nouman Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of clutter, and having searched the internet to see what Nouman Ali Khan has been doing, I am convinced that he does not meet notability requirements. Moreover, the only link on the page is a link to his own website. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject is a popular Youtube personality and blogger (dime a dozen) known among the 15-35 age group of Muslims in the US, UK and Canada. There really isn't any mainstream media coverage to be found; everything is just linked to social media websites and Muslim-themed discussion boards and bulletin sites. Fails WP:GNG and I don't think we need to look further than that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article should be deleted because of few mentioned issues such as notability, invalid citations only one reference from a blog.-- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 05:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Patent nonsense. Agreed with others, it absolutely fails WP:GNG. Not even a notable media personality. Faizan 08:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, thanks to Stalwart111's cleanup. A merge as Bearian suggests would be appropriate in the future. KrakatoaKatie 05:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ambulance Operators Association of Nova Scotia[edit]
- Ambulance Operators Association of Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not clear how this organization might meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in realiable sources. Footnotes provided do not demonstrate notability, the organization is not the primary focus of the source, mention the subject only briefly or not at all. RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without the AOANS there would not be the EMS system from the TV show Emergency that became EHS. As outlined in the historical articles and newspaper clips featured. This association is what made EMS in Nova Scotia the world leader it is today.[1] When you read other EMS groups on Wikipedia this group has a foundation, history and direction that shape EMS in Canada.AlmightyMac (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to be a history written by the organization itself which, as a primary source, unfortunately does not meet wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. The claim that EMS services is in someway connected to Emergency! is not supported by the references provided. EMS services of the LA County Fire Department evolved around the same time that Nova Scotia's did. Other fire departments throughout the US established formalized EMS services around the same time. Without better sources where the association is the primary subject of the source, notability is going to be difficult to establish here.--RadioFan (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to Emergency is with Dr. Ron Steward AOANS was lobbing the governement for further education and support. Ron came in as Health Minister and created the Murphy report which outlined the future of EMS in Nova Scotia. His dream of a paramedic based health EMS system outside of the fire rescue system. Firefighters vs Paramedics have a long history of conflicts. If it wasn't for AOANS and Ron we wouldn't have the unquic pre-hospital health system we have in Nova Scotia today. AlmightyMac (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yeah, the article is an absolute mess and I'm tempted to cite WP:TNT. I might have a crack at cleaning it up. But there are a few sources that provide some early-90s detail and the organisation seems to have been an integral part of emergency service provision in that area, at that time. This is the Government's take on their relationship with the organisation. This academic paper provides some detail about their political campaigns and builds on what is covered in the Government source. I'm inclined to think that an organisation considered by the Government to be part of the history of the area is likely to be notable. If the things claimed in the article actually happened, they would obviously have been the subject of much press coverage so we should keep digging. Stalwart111 05:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – To expand on what Stalwart111 has said, the academic paper mentioned deals significantly with the subject. Chapter 4 deals almost exclusively with the AOANS and contains 54 footnotes (although a number of those are duplicates) that could be used to further develop the article. A number of these references are to newspaper coverage in the Cape Breton Post, The Mirror Examiner, The Vanguard, Halifax Chronicle, etc. A number of the other sources might prove useful in expanding the article to add a section framing the AOANS against the backdrop of health care reform in Canada. Mojoworker (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Interesting articles and sources and should be added to the site.76.11.123.218 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per my discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Paramedic Society, this and Nova Scotia Paramedic Society, into Nova Scotia Emergency Health Services. I think one solid main article could easily be created out of these little ones. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - fails WP:GNG because no sources can be found about the subject; fails WP:AUTHOR as works are not widely cited, and fails WP:SCHOLAR for the same reason. KrakatoaKatie 04:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Walter S. Zapotoczny Jr.[edit]
- Walter S. Zapotoczny Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published author: his 2009 noel is in two libraries only according to worldcat; the other two books are not in worldcat at all. Nothing else there seems remotely notable. Kirkus is no longer a reliable source for notability of self-published books--at present, one pays for a review. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I reject the proposed deletion of this page for the following reasons: 1. Just because someone self-publishes a book does not make his non-credible. 2. While Kirkus is a paid reviewer, they have written many bad reviews of books. They did not have to give his book a positive review. 3. The MWSA review is not a paid review. 4. Do a scholar search and you will find many of the author's articles used by students from many academic institutions. 5. Since the magazine articles written by this author are for print, a reference link could not be made. Aaylan58 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One good review for pay from Kirkus does not make for notability. Nor does the MWSA review, as Zapotoczny is a member of this relatively small association, who would be expected to review any work produced by any of their members. I did a Google Scholar search on Zapotoczny and what I find is a list of articles that he has written and published on his own website, with evidence that one of his articles has been cited in a significant fashion one time. I do not find evidence of Zapotoczny as a significant scholar, nor as a significant novelist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Not much else to say about it. Listing more works by the author won't help to confer notability. What we need is coverage of the author. Stalwart111 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:SCHOLAR. Books are self-published and not reviewed in any meaningful venue. Articles appear to be self-published (all exist as PDFs on the author's own website, but none appear to have been published anywhere). Evidence of contributions to World Book Encyclopedia has not been provided or found. Other article credits (which have subsequently been removed by the article's original author) do not provide evidence of notability as these are all small, limited circulation publications, or eHow, which accepts article submissions from just about anyone. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you have only conducted a superficial examination. The author's 16 World Book Encyclopedia articles can only be viewed by World Book members. Suggest joining World Book and looking at his articles. The author has provided links to the magazine articles on his website. Recommend going to his website -- www.wzaponline.com (portfolio/magazine articles) -- to look at the articles copied from the magazines. World War II History Magazine and Army Aviation Magazine both have large circulations. I found more than one occurrence of his essays being using by college students, e.g., U.S. Naval Post Graduate School, University of Guelph, Florida State University, American University, etc. Comments about the author's essays have been made by several organizations, e.g., History Teachers Association of Australia, Michigan War Studies Group (University of Michigan), UK History Teacher's Forum, etc. Suggest you expand your search. Once again, just because someone self publishes does not mean they are not notable. Look at Hugh C. Howley and E. L. James, for example. Aaylan58 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, again, listing the articles he has written (or linking to his website where he has listed them) is of no value in terms of notability. There are many, many freelance writers who have had articles published in many notable magazines. Many editors here would likely fall into that category. But that doesn't make them notable. Being referenced by colleges and high schools (in curriculum) might help, but we would still need an independent reliable source to verify that claim. If comments have been made about his work then, again, we need to be able to verify that with reliable sources. Simply being mentioned by someone one time is probably not going to be enough to substantiate notability. Have a read of WP:GNG and then come back an put a case on that basis. Stalwart111 13:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- References by colleges and high schools. I found these easily:
- 1. American University: U.S. Military Thought in the Information Age. Zapotoczny's essay "America's Paradoxical Trinity: WWII and Vietnam" is listed as required reading. Link: http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Fall-2011-SIS-419-049_Gerstein.pdf
- 2. University of Guelph. Economics 3620. Assignment to read Zapotoczny's essay " Political Consequences of the Black Death." Link: http://www.coursehero.com/file/6749965/Assignment-1Econ3620Winter2012/
- 3. Thesis for the Naval Post Graduate School references Zapotoczny's article on Piracy. Link: http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2010/Sep/10Sep_Arky.pdf
- 4. Immaculate Heart High School Advanced Placement European History us Zapotoczny's essay on "Political Consequences of the Black Death." As a reading reference. Link: http://www.immaculateheart.org/1710108522443457/lib/1710108522443457/AP_Euro_History_Syllabus_KAnderson.pdf
- 5. Saylor.org. Asian and Pacific Politics lists Zapotoczny's essay "The Rape of Nanking: Reasons and Recriminations" in their reading list. Link: http://www.saylor.org/courses/polsc322/
- Aaylan58 (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. Dickenson College. Essay from Clio Journal/wikispaces. Link: http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The+Rape+of+Nanking
- 7. Listing of some of Wikipedia pages referencing his work:
- a. Nazi-Soviet Population Transfers
- b. 102 Motorized Division: Trento
- c. Expulsion of Poles by Germany
- d. Volksgemeninschaft
- e. Young Turk Revolution
- f. Nazi Crimes Against Ethnic Poles
- g. League of German Girls
- 7. Listing of some of Wikipedia pages referencing his work:
- Yeah, again, none of that is significant coverage. You really do need to read WP:GNG. The study of books by educational institutions can help in some cases relating to the texts themselves (see WP:NBOOK) but it doesn't do mich for the author himself unless such a list substantiates that he/she has made a significant contribution to their field. Just being included in bibliographies or "further reading" lists isn't enough because it tells us nothing about the person himself, which is what we need for a biographical article. Basically, unless you can demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, a keep case here is going to be a struggle. Stalwart111 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:SCHOLAR. We need sources about an individual to have an article about an individual. Bibliographic references are insufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Meets Creative Professional, #1 criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Also meets General notability guideline in WP:GNG. Aaylan58 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I trust DGG, as a retired librarian, friend, and fellow long-time user here. However, to be fair to the newbie, I also looked at some of the possible sources online. There is nothing at JSTOR. Oddly, there are tens of thousdands possible online sources, but many of them, such as what appears to be his father's obituary, just have passing mention of the fils, or are primary sources. On the other hand, in his favor, one of the few ways to evaluate scholars is by how often and how they are cited in papers and course syllabii, such as been cited above (in the comments by Aaylan58). I think a well-referenced article could be created in the future as he gains more notability, but this is not it. As in the past, it is very difficult to evaluate independent scholars, so those articles either hide in plain sight or get deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of people executed in Pennsylvania. Fails WP:CRIME as no notability to the crime itself. KrakatoaKatie 03:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Zettlemoyer[edit]
- Keith Zettlemoyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography which doesn't meet WP:CRIME - only "notable" for being the first to be executed in Pennsylvania after the death penalty was reinstated. There was nothing notable about the crime itself, which is required for notability. Ansh666 04:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to List of people executed in Pennsylvania seems to be the best option. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:BASIC, secondary sources, etc. At worst, redirect as above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BASIC: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." - this poor man fails both, since he is "notable" for being the first to be executed after the reinstatement of the death penalty (better covered in List of people executed in Pennsylvania, to be honest), and doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS since there was no lasting impact independent of the mentioned redirect target. Ansh666 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of people executed in Pennsylvania and reformat that (possibly rename to Capital punishment in Pennsylvania). Most states have articles "Capital punishment in State X" and "List of people executed in State X" - I'm not convinced it's necessary to have 2 articles either for Pennsylvania or many other states, but it's reasonable to have some information on the reinstatement of capital punishment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. LFaraone 02:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prisoner Queen[edit]
- Prisoner Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree fails WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There just isn't enough here to merit an article at this time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep The GNG is not the final nail it the coffin of film notability. While definitely not some big studio highly touted blockbuster... it meets WP:NF by having screened in a festival 5 years after initial release,[10] and has coverage.... just enough to pass WP:NF, even if stubby. IF deleted, let it be without prejudice toward recreation/undeletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while theoretically there might be a faint argument that this meets WP:NF on a technicality, I don't think being shown once at a minor film festival is enough to indicate notability, especially given the paucity of other reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Djuma Game Reserve[edit]
- Djuma Game Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article seems to exist to direct web-traffic to the Reserve's website. The article was recently "updated" by the subject's owner which effectively turned the article into a brochure for the park, with details of the "luxurious" lodges. Having done a search, I couldn't find anything to substantiate WP:CORPDEPTH - mostly just travel guides and directories. I'm sure it's a lovely place to stay, but I can't see how it's notable. Stalwart111 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to Sabi Sands Private Game Reserve, I think it is possible to compile a decent article about the reserve: [11][12]. The section "Accomodation" is promotional and inappropriate for an encyclopedic description. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my only hesitation - that there might be some coverage in Afrikaans (or another local language or dialect) that eluded me. The books in your search were basically what I found, yeah, passing mentions in photo captions and listings (as accommodation) in Lonely Planet-style travel guides and the web search includes lots of user-generated touristy stuff and little by way of significant coverage. I certainly wouldn't object to a redirect if its a useful search term, but can you highlight some of the particular sources that convinced you it should be kept (rather than broad searches)? I'm more than happy to withdraw this if you can find something I couldn't. Stalwart111 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Schwerin, David A.: Conscious Globalism: What's Wrong with the World and how to Fix it, ISBN 9780976518938, p. 226-230, [13] (Stern, in German). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's certainly significant coverage (more than I could find) but I'm not sure a self-published book like that would be considered a reliable source. Stalwart111 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, it looks like an interesting point of view and an independent opinion. It adds to mentions in travel guides and newspapers and could be acceptable. Of course, our opinions may differ. Let's wait for what other editors think. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's certainly significant coverage (more than I could find) but I'm not sure a self-published book like that would be considered a reliable source. Stalwart111 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Schwerin, David A.: Conscious Globalism: What's Wrong with the World and how to Fix it, ISBN 9780976518938, p. 226-230, [13] (Stern, in German). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my only hesitation - that there might be some coverage in Afrikaans (or another local language or dialect) that eluded me. The books in your search were basically what I found, yeah, passing mentions in photo captions and listings (as accommodation) in Lonely Planet-style travel guides and the web search includes lots of user-generated touristy stuff and little by way of significant coverage. I certainly wouldn't object to a redirect if its a useful search term, but can you highlight some of the particular sources that convinced you it should be kept (rather than broad searches)? I'm more than happy to withdraw this if you can find something I couldn't. Stalwart111 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of The Brady Bunch characters#The Brady's pets. LFaraone 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiger (dog)[edit]
- Tiger (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Animal actor appearing in a handful of episodes of The Brady Bunch. Any relation to storylines is appropriately described in List of The Brady Bunch episodes. AldezD (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Given the sourcing (or lack thereof), I think this is better placed in another Brady Bunch article. It's possible, however, that the listing at List of The Brady Bunch characters would be preferable to adding something at the episode list - and note that Tiger is already mentioned on the characters list. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Brady Bunch is somebody wants to. This is never going to get past being Single Sourced, and GNG explicitly requires multiple sources. Carrite (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to List of The Brady Bunch characters to do away with most of the article. If anyone can find a good reference for the idea that Tiger got a cult following for A Boy and His Dog, that could go in the reception part of that article. Otherwise, just do away with it. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The Brady Bunch characters#The Brady's pets --TKK bark ! 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of The Brady Bunch characters#The Brady's pets. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 01:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
César Ramírez (torcedor)[edit]
- César Ramírez (torcedor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for 207.119.152.214, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. The same concern seems to have been raised in 2008, with 8 edits in the 5 years since (none of them adding sources). My own search comes up with nothing. On the merits, no recommendation. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion because the subject does not meet notability guidelines. The subject is mentioned only in passing in the included article. A search of the web reveals no other sources of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.152.214 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although the LA Times article listed in the article does not feature Ramirez as the primary subject, it is much more than a passing mention as claimed in the nomination; the material on Ramirez appears to take up about one third of the article. The local (Las Vegas) CBS affiliate also did this story on him. In total though, I don't think that is sufficient to meet inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above. The two available notes are useful in terms of notability but not enough to justify a WP:BLP, and I can't find anything else. — Frankie (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus to keep, but I'll dab as well. Feel free to revert and discuss at band talk page if you disagree. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pell Mell[edit]
- Pell Mell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Garage band article with no citations. Does not meet notability requirements. Worse, this expression, "pell mell", should be located here, not this band. KDS4444Talk 19:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously notable. Just look at the Allmusic entry and the album releases. --Michig (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A single article on a web page does not constitute multiple secondary sources. The fact that they have released one or more albums does not in and of itself confer notability. KDS4444Talk 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for more yields links to a description of the band published by the record label that signed them (Matador Records— therefore not an independent source per WP:IS) and plagiarized copies of this same description on other websites. Incidentally, it also yields references to a German band by the same name which must be parsed from this one. KDS4444Talk 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Alongside the coverage described above, album releases on SST Records, DGC Records and Matador Records show that WP:BAND#5 is met. — sparklism hey! 07:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Pell Mell (band) to allow for the creation of a disambiguation page in its place with a short intro about the phrase "pell mell". We don't want to get into WP:DICDEF territory but a short explanation would be of value, I think. Pell Mell the band should be listed along with Pell-Mell Woodcote, the official publication of the Royal Automobile Club. Pell Mell also seems to have been a sport (a precursor to croquet) which is probably worth mentioning and may even justify an article of its own. The band itself is obviously notable, but shouldn't occupy the title for the term after which it seems to have been named. There was a similar case here except that group wasn't notable. Stalwart111 06:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Stalwart111. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INES (TV service)[edit]
- INES (TV service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The lack of independent sources here is quite glaring. We have the company's own site, a dead link to another site run by the company, and a press release. None of this rises to the standard set by WP:GNG/WP:CORP. - Biruitorul Talk 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of what I want; "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is what policy demands. Sources can be in any language, so its location in Romania should not be that much of a problem.
- True, www.digitaltvnews.net is probably not owned by iNES. But you may wish to review WP:SPS - citing press releases is not only strongly discouraged, it also cannot substitute for coverage in independent sources, which we don't have. - Biruitorul Talk 20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. iNES is the first IPTV service provider in Romania, since 2005, according to Capital and Ziarul Financiar. iNES is also the first network who provided HD TV in Romania, since November 2008, according to Hotnews. They were still the only IPTV provider in Romania in 2009, having invested 2mln euros in the IPTV division, according to Curierul Național. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#1.E2.80.9399. This is one of the most requested articles since January 2013; deleting it would create almost 200 red links. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... not really, see [14]. But as I wrote above, I think this article should be kept because it is about a notable service provider. 10:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Rsocol-major TV provider in Romania. Matty.007 10:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there are clearly issues with referencing but a cursory search indicates that the subject is notable. I am happy to assist the creator to improve the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have reworked the article, deleted one source which was unreliable, reformatted external links and deleted one which was a duplicate, consolidated all section headings into "Overview" and rephrased a little to improve readability. There are enough reliable sources to meet WP:NOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zazaki Wikipedia[edit]
- Zazaki Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy TalkDone 17:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per Jguy. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Melissa Jean Woodside[edit]
- Melissa Jean Woodside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor. No roles listed on IMDb. No reliable sources from which to draw verifiable content. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails relevant sections of WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER: "(no) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Tassedethe (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of attained notability. The references in the article are primary and the nearest to detailed coverage I could find is a blog interview which isn't enough. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, check this: [15]--Uuuwiki (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So she posted a youtube video. Not really a sign of notability since any can do it and millions have. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No! I don't think anyone can do an interview with actor like David Whitney. Please, show me where millions have? And for your kind information she didn't posted that video. Even the video was uploaded on 20 April 2013. Do you have any proof to support your comment? Warm Regards, --Bigmjfan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Bigmjfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment For one thing, the interviewer on the video introduces herself as "Amanda Care", not Melissa Jean Woodside. Second, I don't know who David Whitney is. The article you linked to was for an art curator dead eight years now. Without knowing who Whitney is, I'd be hard pressed to say how hard it is to arrange an interview with him, but given the shoddy quality of the video, I wouldn't say it's too hard. And given that the interviewer has only identified herself as Amanda Care, I have no way of verifying that this is or is not Melissa Jean Woodsite. All in all, I would not say that this video bolsters the case for notability for Woodside. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No! I don't think anyone can do an interview with actor like David Whitney. Please, show me where millions have? And for your kind information she didn't posted that video. Even the video was uploaded on 20 April 2013. Do you have any proof to support your comment? Warm Regards, --Bigmjfan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Bigmjfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment So she posted a youtube video. Not really a sign of notability since any can do it and millions have. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, check this: [15]--Uuuwiki (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability at all. David Whitney seems pretty non-notable too :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actors and actresses are not automatically entitled to articles on Wikipedia just because you can demonstrate the mere fact that they exist — which is all that the cited references (a meetup.com listing and a "castingcall.com" profile) demonstrate. Rather, you need to use reliable sources — coverage in real media, sourced directly to the copyright holder and not to a YouTube video, by which we can verify the article's content and notability. That standard has not, however, been properly met here. The article might become keepable in the future if real sources can be provided about her, but nothing cited here at the present time counts as a valid source, and the article is thus not entitled to stick around in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to Buffalo Public Schools. Kudu ~I/O~ 20:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Campus North School[edit]
- Campus North School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, non notable primary schools, not independently sourced to show that it passes WP:ORG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools per the usual. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools per the usual practice set by long standing precedent for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Buffalo Public Schools per above/the usual. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yamakov[edit]
- Yamakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not find any WP:RS showing WP:SIGCOV. Bulgarian search turns up mostly names (I used ямаков) and I don't know what rifle would translate to (пушка?), and those combined didn't come up with anything either. Although, I don't know Bulgarian at all so maybe there's something out there. Ansh666 00:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main sources of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror. Also, article itself states that it was an "experimental weapon", a dead end that never entered production.--RAF910 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Entering production is not required to have an article. reliable sources to establish notability are, and, as noted, there are only Wikimirrors and blogs as sources - there isn't even enough to verify that this even existed. It seems that there was a "Col Yamakov" who was chief of police in Plovdiv at one point, but nothing but clones of this article to support anything about a gun. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable and not referenced.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruben Loftus-Cheek[edit]
- Ruben Loftus-Cheek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is not yet sufficiently notable - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Not Delete - I would say that we shouldn't delete the Ruben Loftus-Cheek page because of his involvement in the England U16 and England U17 proves his significant to the football world. Longojahado —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Delete or userfy - Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Quoting the article, "Ruben joined Chelsea's academy at Under-8 and has been with the club his entire career." Clearly falls short of WP:NFOOTBALL as of right now. If the nominator and creator agree that there is reason that this subject may become notable in the near future, userfication might be a better alternative than "saving what you've got". Although the article as it stands includes some puffery. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He is yet to make his debut for Chelsea's first team and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability, meaning the article fails that guideline pretty clearly. The coverage he has received does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Way too soon and as an Englishman with Chelsea who knows when he will get his chance?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy There is a 50-50 chance of him being a success at Chelsea, so I suggest this article be moved to his userspace where it can be further developed, and when the time is right, moved to the main article space. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 15:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL not having played in a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG, the only remotely significant coverage is a dubious tabloidish claim that he was linked to a major Spanish club. Hack (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sisters of Adoration, Slaves of the Blessed Sacrament and of Charity[edit]
- Sisters of Adoration, Slaves of the Blessed Sacrament and of Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article is unreferenced and is written in a format that is advertising. This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. 155blue (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just split of the biographical part. This is a notable religious order, and we should not delete the article. This is a transition in progress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge to Maria Micaela Desmaisieres. The nom provides no valid deletion criteria at all. There is some news coverage, but this seems to be a purely Spanish order unaffiliated with other orders called "Sisters of Adoration," so coverage is thin. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to be a legitimate RC order. We normally keep articles on these, particularly if, as claimed, it has thousands of members. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Roman Catholic orders of nuns usually meet WP:ORG via multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I am looking at the article after it has been purged of the bio of its founder (or inspirer). The order has apparenbtly gone throught the ritual of getting its founder canonised, indicating that the Catholic Church considers her important. Even if this were only a Spanish order, I think we should keep it, but it is a mere stub. I re-formated the external links, but have nbot followed them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Triboluminescence. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emission of electromagnetic radiation during fracture[edit]
- Emission of electromagnetic radiation during fracture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article is too niche to be of use. Also fails notability standards. Suggest redirecting to something related to electromagnetic radiation. Andrew327 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Electromagnetic radiation - there seems to be some useful information in the article, so it could be incorporated with the article on EMR. Uberaccount (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Related to Triboluminescence. The topic is not "too niche to be of use," although this article certainly has problems. -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with triboluminescence which is much the same phenomenon. Being a niche topic is irrelevant - most of our topics are obscure. Warden (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: as abovementioned, it's basically a fork of triboluminescence. --Cyclopiatalk 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to triboluminescence per the aforementioned comments. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.